Re: Semper Vigilans - Re: Extremism

From: Michael S. Lorrey (
Date: Wed Jan 10 2001 - 12:12:57 MST

Joe Dees wrote:
> >Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 17:42:50 -0500
> >From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <>
> >To:
> >Subject: Re: Semper Vigilans - Re: Extremism
> >Reply-To:
> >
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> In a message dated 1/9/01 1:01:02 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> >> writes:<< Oh, and after that: "eternal
> >> vigilance"... which takes on enhanced meaning when you're an immortalist.
> >> Russell >>
> >>
> >> Russell,
> >> That was very good. That also takes on another meaning when one is
> >> letting a anti-gun extremist know that incrementalism ain't going to work.
> >
> I am not an anti-gun extremist, but an articulate moderate, but as I wrote in my phenomenology of extremism, an extremist must label everyone who does not agree with them on every particular as either a clueless dupe or a malevolent and duplicitous shill. I guess this extremist has opted for #2.

Well, I must say you certainly have a broad vocabulary, but that doesn't
make you articulate.

> >
> Yeah, as Harlan Ellison observed: "Guns don't kill people; people kill people - mainly, with guns." One used to have to be strong, fast, devious or smart to kill. Now any weak, slow, tactless dummy can do it - to anyone else, deserving or not, in defence or attack - to one's fact, or in the back. And some folks are much more likely to - kids, violent criminals, and the clinically insane - the irresponsivility triad - which is why they should be excliuded from 2nd amendment protection - for the protection of the rest of us.

And, of course, you'd much prefer a corrupt Attorney General like Janet
Reno to decide just who those prohibited people are, wouldn't you?

> >
> PS: do you know what the real irony is? I was just conducting a running phenomenology of extremism, and what happens? The extremists feel maligned and felt the need to conduct a pack attack, just as I have experienced here before, and just as I characterized in my analysis. Thanks for revealing yourselves for what you truly are AND making me a prophet AGAIN. Do you really think you will deter me from ceaslessly insisting that your rabid pack crawl back into your wet dark exi-freedom hole under your flat luddite retro rock and leave the thoughtful people here to discuss the future?
> I've had a large circle of fundamentalist christians, led by evangelist Larry Lea, loudly and passionately pray to my face for Sweet Jesus to take me, by name, then and there, because I shielded women from their picket poster attacks as they arrived to enter the clinic. Do you really think a pack of insecure progun extremist pencil-necked geeks can intimidate me online? Think back to your experience, if you can, and I'm sure you will realize better. I have posted 1200 emails here before; I will do it again, under 1200 different addies, if necessary. It is YOU who are breaking the rules here, and I will remind you of that forEVER. How's THAT for an immortalist stance?

Once again, you prove yourself a heinous liar. As even Greg Burch will
tell you, there is NO rule against such topics here. I and others have,
in our non-extremist willingness to accomodate others on the list,
chosen to take this discussion to the exi-freedom list that I created.
It is YOU who continue to rant and rave your extremist, intolerant
rhetoric here demonizing others, while refusing to join the exi-freedom
list where your rants, according to your own arguments, belong. So you
are not only a liar, but a hypocrit.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:18 MDT